Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [UFOnet] Proof [over faith]

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    Hello Roger, I thought that the article made several good points, including: In defense of faith over proof, society has granted an unreasonable weight
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Roger,

      I thought that the article made several good points, including:

      <snip>

      In defense of faith over proof, society has granted an
      unreasonable weight of authority to faith. Faith is revered as
      a virtue while scientific skepticism is often derided as a
      cynical vice.

      <snip>

      Meaningless arguments like that, between skeptics and believers
      take endless circular sojourns around the relative merits of
      phrases like, "burden of proof", "extraordinary claims /
      extraordinary evidence", "prove a negative", etc. But, the
      bottom line is that the "supernatural" lies outside of nature,
      and therefore outside of proof or science. That which cannot
      be proven requires faith. Faith does not require proof, nor
      evidence, nor logic. Proof requires all of these but faith.
      Faith and proof are in essence mutually exclusive. This means
      that arguing from either position against the other will
      forever feel like a meaningless effort in futility.

      <snip>

      > Load of rubbish. If one person wants to interpret
      > things by a belief in God and another person wants to
      > interpret it by not believing in God, there is no
      > proof that can be shown to either of them to make them
      > change their minds, if they don't want to change their
      > minds.

      Which is exactly the point that the autor was making, I thought?

      Joe
    • Roger Anderton
      ... From: Joe McGonagle To: Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Proof [over faith] ...
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
        To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:23 AM
        Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Proof [over faith]


        > Hello Roger,
        >
        > I thought that the article made several good points, including:
        >
        > <snip>
        >
        > In defense of faith over proof, society has granted an
        > unreasonable weight of authority to faith. Faith is revered as
        > a virtue while scientific skepticism is often derided as a
        > cynical vice.
        >
        > <snip>

        Society is composed of lots of different opinions; to say "society has
        granted an
        unreasonable weight of authority to faith" is an error, part of society
        might have, but not all of society.


        >
        > Meaningless arguments like that, between skeptics and believers
        > take endless circular sojourns around the relative merits of
        > phrases like, "burden of proof", "extraordinary claims /
        > extraordinary evidence", "prove a negative", etc. But, the
        > bottom line is that the "supernatural" lies outside of nature,
        > and therefore outside of proof or science. That which cannot
        > be proven requires faith. Faith does not require proof, nor
        > evidence, nor logic. Proof requires all of these but faith.
        > Faith and proof are in essence mutually exclusive. This means
        > that arguing from either position against the other will
        > forever feel like a meaningless effort in futility.
        >
        > <snip>
        >

        Saying that a certain phenomenon is supernatural and that "supernatural lies
        outside of nature,
        and therefore outside of proof or science" is a way of dismissing the
        phenomenon from scientific investigation, when really everything should be
        subject to scientific investigation.



        >> Load of rubbish. If one person wants to interpret
        >> things by a belief in God and another person wants to
        >> interpret it by not believing in God, there is no
        >> proof that can be shown to either of them to make them
        >> change their minds, if they don't want to change their
        >> minds.
        >
        > Which is exactly the point that the autor was making, I thought?
        >
        > Joe

        Not quite.
        Roger
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.